Neutralization is the imposition by international agreement of a condition of permanent neutrality upon lands and waterways. Neutrality, from which it is derived, is of two kinds: that which is assumed from within, and that which is imposed from without, and neutral states may be divided into those which abstain from war of their own free will, and those which by international conventions are restrained from all hostilities whatsoever and enjoy a perpetual peace. In either case the duty of strict impartiality toward belligerents remains the same. While simple neutrality is the condition of those states which in time of war take no part in the contest, but continue pacific intercourse with the belligerents, neutralization perpetuates this condition by means of treaties effected between several powerful nations and the neutralized states.

The international relationship thus arising between a neutralized state and its guarantors is a purely contractual one. It exists neither by rules of international law nor in the agreed customs of nations, but solely in the treaties by which it is created. It follows that no state can neutralize itself; a contract and the interdependent relationship of several states is in all cases necessary.

Neutralization is yet a new idea, scarcely more than a century old. First applied by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 in the neutralization of Switzerland, it is to-day regarded without question as part of the public law of Europe. It has been made to cover a multitude of objects: states, territories, cities, provinces, islands and canals. Four entire countries have been neutralized, three of them independent states of Europe, and one a union of dependent states in Africa. Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg; Cracow; Corfu and Paxo; Savoy; the Basin of the Congo and the Suez Canal have all been placed in more or less permanent neutrality. A little known instance has occurred in America in the placing of Honduras in a state of absolute neutrality for the duration of a ten-year treaty, in which position she is respected and guaranteed by the action of the other Central American States.

Wherever permanent neutrality has been applied it has had for its object the entire removal from the field of war of objects of jealousy and aggression between nations. Arising from the desire to separate hostile neighbors, the early states to be neutralized were buffer states, barriers liable to be traversed by the armies of both belligerents in time of war. With the century, however, the doctrine has developed new and potentially more effective powers in the furtherance of international peace. Where once entire states were neutralized, provinces and colonies may now be placed in a similar position and forever removed as the fruitful causes of

war or occasions for armed peace. Neutralization diminishes in effect the chances of war between states by removing the most envied territories and the most important strategic positions from the aims and ambitions of international aggressors.

Will this principle of perpetual neutrality, expressed and enforced under international organization, appeal with equal weight to all nations, great and small alike, offering to both sufficient and satisfactory guarantees, without which its success is impossible? We may endeavor to outline its probable scope and effectiveness here. To the great states will be given the governance of the world, the maintenance of its peace and the power to enforce it. To the smaller states neutralization under international organization offers the promise and guarantee of integrity, independence and the peaceful pursuit of national aspirations.

Neutralization creates in no sense a protectorate. Protection implies security at the loss of both internal and external sovereignty; but the state placed in permanent neutrality loses no part whatever of its internal sovereignty and only so much of its external freedom of action as may, by its exercise, endanger the very continuance of its peaceful relations with its neighbors. Neutralization is not an affair between guardian and ward, but an international act, an agreement of mutual obligation and understanding between fully sovereign states, undertaken in the interest of them all.

Is such a condition possible: a division of the world into two groups, one of powerful nations, guarantors and guardians of peace, and the other embracing all the rest of the civilized world, small states, territories and colonies, all confirmed by contract in perpetual peace?

It may not be attained at once; but the idea is practicable, and the growth of the principle of permanent neutrality has been steady and sure, until through its means have arisen possibilities for friendlier world relationships, undreamed of by early statesmen.

Of course, even under international organization such a relationship demands sacrifice on both sides. On the neutralized state will rest the obligation of permitting no infringement of its permanent neutrality by word or deed, the proper and necessary maintenance of fortifications for its own defense, and a certain degree of military preparedness. On each guarantor, individually and jointly with the other guarantors, will rest the obligation of suppressing and punishing each breach of contract against the peace of the world. It is no great sacrifice, however, to the small nations to become permanently neutral, to take no part in war or in the activities of the joint world police; and the power to enforce the decisions of a world congress falls naturally upon the joint military strength of the

few great states as the governors and guardians of the peace of the entire world. By leaving the maintenance of such a peace to the nations best fitted by natural resources to bear their proportion of the necessary military establishment, the nations, small and great alike, would, under neutralization, free themselves from the burdens of competitive militarism.

On the other hand, let us not be deluded with the idea that even under perpetual neutrality, extended over the greater portion of the earth's surface and guaranteed by the joint contract of all of the great Powers, would world peace become a natural condition of mankind. Peace under any form of world governance will always mean eternal vigilance; and to that end neutralization implies and provides that peace shall be not only desired but maintained.

It may be contended that neutralization will not be maintained in the future; that it will fail, and the case of Belgium is cited. The case of Belgium is not the failure of neutralization, but a supreme example of its justification. No power can prevent a country from being invaded any more than a policeman can prevent an assault or a fireman prevent a fire. But resistance can be aided, the invasion can be turned back, and swift punishment can be meted out to the invader. The fact that England entered the war with all her power to relieve invaded Belgium, and the stern conviction of a united world that this war will not be concluded until restitution has been accomplished, reparation made, and adequate punishment meted out to the invaders is the strongest possible security for the sanctity of neutralized territory for all time to come. There is no doubt in our minds but that every neutralized state, and every state that shall hereafter be neutralized, is the safer for what has happened and what is now happening in Belgium. Without this splendid justification and support no one could say whether or not neutralization would fail at the test. It has not failed; it has been strengthened for the future a thousandfold.

Finally, how may such a condition of guardians and neutralized states be realized? Surely only under the comprehensive scheme of international organization which has been unfolded at the meeting. If the principle of neutralization is advantageous in a world organization, so is a world organization essential to the maintenance of neutralization. The structure of international relationships contemplated under international organization is not based on the temporary desires of a few self-interested states; it takes in the world, guarantors and guaranteed alike, in mutual, honorable, and universal respect and obligation.

This cannot all be accomplished at one time. Many problems must first be met and overcome. Neutralization has grown during a century

and is still young in spirit and capable of infinite expansion. Beginning with those states in which the need and desire for permanent neutrality is greatest, the work may be continued in states which need it less, until all the world is guarantor or guaranteed in peace, and international contract has replaced irresponsible action in the government of the world.

The period for the neutralization of buffer states only is past, and the period for removing the jealousies between Europe and America and the Far East has begun. Neutralization is a remedy lying ready to our hands in removing not only the causes of war but also the intolerable burdens of armed peace. There is no loss of honor to a state in accepting neutralization and no occasion for shame in granting it to colonial possessions. Free and independent states may ask for and receive permanent neutrality as freely as did Switzerland a century ago, and every state may have the opportunity of expressing its desire before one of the many international conferences now so frequently summoned in the furtherance of peace. The part which may be played by the United States in the future of permanent neutrality is important, but its possibilities are not restricted to our nation alone. South America in particular may propose it for one or all of her states, and in so doing confirm before the world any principle of permanent neutrality to which she wholly gives her support. Not only would her growing nations be freed from the crippling burdens of competitive militarism, but also, with prejudice and the fear of aggression once removed, a way would be opened to friendly and more stable relationships with all the world, which could not fail to meet with the approval of the Powers. This result in the furtherance of international peace would be inestimable; it is also within our power to achieve it.

The CHAIRMAN. The subject is now open for informal discussion from the floor. Whom shall we first have the pleasure of hearing?

Dr. DAVID JAYNE HILL. Mr. Chairman, while someone who wishes to discuss this subject is preparing to do so, I will take the opportunity to express my very great interest in the notable paper to which we have just listened, and to commend the speaker as far as my commendation can go, for his maturity of thought, his facility of expression, and his fertility of suggestion. I believe that here is an element of which the future organization of the world must make great use. The problem of the relation of the small states to the great international organism is one of the most difficult problems of solution, and it seems to me quite possible that by an adaptation of this great principle - a guarantee of permanent neutralization much may be done to solve it.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom shall we next have the pleasure of hearing?

Professor ION. I think Senator La Fontaine's idea is excellent, and when it is realized, after a century, more or less, then we can accept his theory; but it is more or less certain that after this war, his idea will not be realized; at least, not for some time to come. Therefore, the necessity of the neutrality of states and the permanent neutrality of states seems to be absolute. In 1870 both Prussia and France respected the neutrality of Belgium, and we cannot conclude that because in this war Germany violated the treaty, all the Powers will violate their treaties in future. Let us take another example, Panama, whose neutrality and independence has been guaranteed by this country. Supposing there were a society of nations, do you think Panama would ever give up its guarantee of neutrality?

In that particular treaty, as many of you may remember, the United States guaranteed the independence and neutrality, but not the integrity of the territory, of Panama. I do not care to enter into any discussion of that question now, because there are various writers with various theories; but there is one criticism I make of that treaty in this respect. I think it would have been fairer to have included the words "the integrity of the territory of Panama." Of course, there are writers who think that the guarantee of neutrality includes, in some way, a guarantee of integrity, but we have some examples which would seem to indicate the contrary. For example, the Treaty of 1856 guaranteeing the independence of Turkey did not guarantee its neutrality. It did, however, distinctly guarantee its independence and integrity, because a state might be independent, like Turkey, and might continue to be independent, but she might lose part of her territory. Of course the Powers have not respected the integrity of Turkey, because Turkey herself did not behave well, having committed. so many massacres.

The necessity of neutralizing the states will be one of the principal questions, I think, in the peace conference, and I hope that Constantinople will be a neutralized city. It will be necessary to neutralize not alone the city of Constantinople, but also the Bosphorus, and if Russia does not desire to have Constantinople, it is pretty certain that Constantinople will be neutralized. Therefore, we must hope that that question will be taken up and carried out in a proper manner.

There is another thing about neutralization: it would be a good thing if the states would not encroach upon the sovereignty of other states in neutralization, as was done in 1856. If you remember, the European states imposed upon Russia the neutralization of the Black Sea, and did